When Columbus first went after its Major League Soccer franchise, it seemed like a colossal
waste of time. Lots of pro leagues had come and gone in the 1980s and '90s, including the three
major soccer leagues, and it struck me that even if the local team were wildly successful, MLS
might not last five years.

I was wrong. Because of the single-entity concept, MLS was able to keep salaries down and
control costs. Because of committed, deep-pocketed owners such as the Hunts, MLS was able stay the
course, achieve its goal of smaller, soccer-specific stadiums and grow.

It was a modest model and one that didn't offer quick admittance into America's sports
mainstream, but it achieved an important goal that many new sports leagues miss: survival. Little
leagues can't grow into big leagues if they don't survive.

But it has been 15 years now, MLS is no longer the little tyke it once was and it's time to act
like a grown-up. That doesn't mean throwing around money like the owner of a Major League Baseball
franchise; it means loosening things a bit and giving players some rights.

With MLS having made hugely successful expansion forays into Seattle and Toronto, with Vancouver
and Portland and maybe even Montreal on the way, the woe-is-us, survival argument no longer holds
water. This is a league on the move and the players should be given the chance to share in the
coming prosperity.

That doesn't mean giving the players the right to free agency; most of us may never live to see
that happen in a league founded on principles of strict economy. If those are their demands, rich
owners with extensive interests such as the Hunts and Krafts could easily kiss pro soccer
goodbye.

But some of the issues the players want resolved seem like eminently reasonable requests in a
15-year-old league showing signs of maturity:

• The players want teams to have more autonomy in player acquisition. If a team wants a player,
the league can decide he's not worth the salary it wants to pay and veto the deal. In a league with
a hard, low salary cap, what's the harm in letting individual teams decide?

• Most players have contracts that aren't guaranteed until July 1, which is about the time the
international transfer window opens. So it's easy for the league to sign somebody else and release
them with no consequences halfway into the season.

• Clubs hold one-way club options on the players they keep after July 1, meaning they can retain
a player for three more years at the same salary. The player has no right to try to
renegotiate.

• If a player is released or his contract expires, his former team keeps the rights to him. If
another team wants to sign him, it has to make a deal with the team that released him.

Huh? A team waives a player and still controls his destiny? That alone says MLS players have no
rights, although if the league controls all player decisions, he can't actually negotiate with
another team, anyway.

It seems reasonable for the players to ask for any of those changes. I can see why the league
would be reluctant to give the teams more autonomy; it goes against the single-entity concept that
has helped the league survive. But it seems that MLS could easily give in on the last three and
move past this.

It isn't happening, though. The collective bargaining deadline set by MLS and the players union
expired yesterday with no news; the league, content to operate under the current rules, said it
won't lock the players out and the players announced that for now they will keep working.

But it looks like a strike is coming at some point - maybe in late June when it can do the most
damage - and if it does, it could deal the league a severe setback just as it appears ready to take
off.

The owners might be willing to risk that. A better course would be to accept an important update
to its original goal: